Monday, September 08, 2008

I’m not the only one that’s B.C.-bound today. Stephen Harper flew into Lotus Land last night, where I’m told he has a scant one event on the agenda for the day before leaving the province in the evening: a tightly-controlled meeting with a pre-selected, pre-screened “real family.”

Were British Columbians to actually get a chance to talk to the Prime Minister though, they may want to ask him about this Web site: www.PromiseBreakers.ca.

Launched this morning by the Liberal campaign in BC, the Promise Breakers site contains an extensive audit of the Conservative Party’s 2006 platform for BC and details the lengthily list of promises be broke to British Columbians, from fixed election dates and government accountability to leaky condos. All with supporting background and links to back-up the Harper failures.

For example, on softwood (one of many broken promises by Harper on this vital BC issue):

What Stephen Harper promised…

Platform: Work to return more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.

What Stephen Harper delivered…

Harper forfeited $1 billion in illegal U.S. duties in the agreement, despite NAFTA rulings in Canada’s favour, breaking his promise to British Columbians.

Trade Minister David Emerson: “The agreement…puts more than US $4 billion back into the pockets of Canadian exporters.”

Harper moved the goalposts: “The return of most of the duties collected on softwood lumber.”

BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst Stephen Atkinson: “Why would you give 22 per cent to your competition? This money belongs to the companies and their shareholders, and the Canadian government is giving it away.”

No wonder Stephen Harper is avoiding any unscripted interaction with un-screened British Columbians. He has a lot to answer for.

6 comments:

Steven Harper is the only person who can lead us at this time. the Liberals are still blogged down with there old ideology and are Eastern based, that does not represent Canada, He has the aboriginals and the Inuit and western part of the Country as part of his base, I vote according to the parties platforms and record. and the Liberals have consistanaly shown that they are elitist in ideas and inword looking. I voted for Mr Trudeau many years ago at the early part of his career, then he became a TRUE party member and lost his way, and We have had sad sad leader since. Mr Martin the last Lib Leader removed his money from Canada offshore, took his shipping company away from Canada, hired and underpaid sailors from the Phillipines firing regular Canadian and Australian sailors, did not pay Canadian Taxes, this si the party of the me generation and until a new Party or leader surfaces Mr Harper is our only one.

barcs, someone was telling me a few posts down that it was "unfair" for me to go back as far as 2004 when it comes to the Con record. Now you're going back to 1993?

I'll say in shirt form, yes, not all red book promises were broken. We had explanations, some good, some not as much. We also had a huge deficit from Mulroney to tame.

Anyway, we had to answer for our broken promises. And we did. And the people passed judgement at the ballot box.

Now, it's Harper's turn. That's part of being in government, you have a record that you run on. You had time in government to fulfill your promises tha you ran on in the LAST election. Looking at if you did what you said you do is perfectly valid.

If there's reasons some promises weren't kept, its incumbent on you (the CPC) to explain why. Then, people can judge.

But just saying the Liberals broke promises in 1993, so we don't have to keep ours? That's sad.

You're making promises now. If calling you on ones broken without explanation from 2004/05 is unfair, why should anyone believe you'll do what you're saying you'll do this time?

So what do you have to run on for a record? You weren't in power for last few years so we have only the Chretien martin years to decide how you will react in power.

How many times (beyond this post) have you gone back to Mulroney? to the Reform, to the alliance?? Was it me that said you shouldn't go back? I think I said if you are willing to go back then we should too...

In any case I see no problem with going back to the last time you governed so long as I keep hearing about the reform hidden agenda.

"We had explanations, some good, some not as much." - ditto I guess. If yours were good enough then why aren't ours?